To compromise the safety of the network they would need to control 70% of the amount currently staked. (so they would need to buy over 150 million AVAX (worth over $2 billion, but obviously a) if someone tried to buy that amount then it would push the price up a lot and so would cost far more than that and b) they wouldn't be able to buy all from stake that was locked and so have to buy from what's available in circulating and then stake it, increasing the amount required further to obtain 70%
Seq657561523 activity
Seq657561523 commented on Yes, staking reward is independent. But say we've now reached max supply of ~720M. If fees being burnt are 6%, I understood that staking rewards would be clamped to 6% even though they were theoretically 5%, in order to offset the 6% transaction fee burning. This would prevent danger of the system g... Read more
The formula just ensures that no more than 720 million are minted, the variables can be changed through governance to mint less than the amount of fees burnt if desired. It's the same formula for earlier on as well so technically could be deflationary at some point before it gets close to 720 million. It all depends on the price, fees burnt and minting rate / staking dynamics and governance. The variables could be configured so that all unminted supply is rewarded or they may be configured so that it's a proportion. The minting of burnt fees ensures that there is a way to increase the amount of tokens (up to 720 million) if deemed necessary and doesn't get in a position where they are continuously burnt and rewards are low and then you need due to external factors or low staking rate or just too little supply you are unable to increase the rewards and the chain is effected.